Stevenson v. Nine, 28 N.Y.2d 152 (1971)

An unsuccessful candidate seeking to overturn an election based on irregularities bears the burden of proving that the irregularities were of such a nature as to establish the probability that the election result would be changed by a shift in, or invalidation of, the questioned votes.

Summary

In a Democratic primary election, Edward Stevenson lost the nomination for Assemblyman to Louis Nine by a narrow margin. Stevenson challenged the election results, alleging numerous irregularities, including ineligible voters, undated signatures, and excessive votes. The Special Term found a significant number of irregularities, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding insufficient evidence that these irregularities would have changed the election outcome. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, holding that Stevenson failed to meet his burden of proving a probability that the election result would have been different without the irregularities. The Court emphasized that simply showing a mathematically close election is insufficient to justify a new election.

Facts

In a Democratic primary election for the 78th Assembly District, 5,507 voters participated. Edward Stevenson received 642 votes, losing to Louis Nine, who received 715 votes. Another candidate, Albert Brooks, Jr., received 502 votes. Stevenson challenged the election, alleging irregularities.

Procedural History

Stevenson initiated a proceeding in Special Term seeking a new primary election. Special Term, after a hearing, found 263 election irregularities. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that Stevenson failed to prove the irregularities would have changed the election outcome. Stevenson appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether an unsuccessful candidate challenging an election based on irregularities must prove that the irregularities were of such a nature as to establish the probability that the election result would be changed by a shift in, or an invalidation of, the questioned votes.

Holding

Yes, because an unsuccessful candidate has the burden of proving that the irregularities were of such a nature so as to establish the probability that the result of the election would be changed by a shift in, or an invalidation of, the questioned votes.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the irregularities were not sufficient to warrant a new election. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the unsuccessful candidate to demonstrate that the irregularities were significant enough to likely alter the election’s outcome. The Court distinguished the case from instances of fraud or misconduct, characterizing it as a matter of irregularity common in elections. The Court stated that “the mere showing that an election was mathematically close is not enough to justify a new election.” The Court cited several precedents, including Matter of De Martini v. Power, Matter of Ippolito v. Power, Matter of Straus v. Power, Matter of Acevedo v. Power, and Matter of Badillo v. Santangelo, to support its holding that a close election alone is insufficient grounds for ordering a new election without sufficient evidence linking specific irregularities to a probable change in the result. The court implicitly adopts a policy of judicial restraint in overturning election results absent a clear showing of prejudicial error.